The Instigator
Clicker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Buggie111
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Pro Sports team in Las Vegas

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Buggie111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 604 times Debate No: 46441
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Clicker

Pro

We want sports in Las Vegas! It would be a great idea. It would raise money and there would be other things to do other than gamble and drink. It would also make Las Vegas more kid and family friendly. It would be something a family can do together. Vegas can build an arena, and a team can go there. Las Vegas would be a great place for a pro sports team.
Buggie111

Con

Point by point rebuttals, which also encompass my own points at the same time:
1. "It would raise money."
Pro is somewhat correct. Although, in the long run, Las Vegas GDP would grow from it"s current 34th $95,602,000 GDP, the climb will be long and slow. Like many expansion NFL teams have proven over and over, the climb to relevance is tedious. Let"s take a look at the first playoff win for the post-merger expansion teams in the NFL:
Houston Texans (2002): 2011 (Once since have they won 1+ games in the playoffs)
Cleveland Browns (1999): Never.
Baltimore Ravens (1996): 2000 (6 since)
Jacksonville Jaguars (1995): 1996 (3 since)
Carolina Panthers (1995): 1996 (2 since)
Seattle Seahawks (1976): 1983 (7 since)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (1976): 1979 (3 since)
For some expansion teams, glory came long after they became franchises. For others, they started off hot, but success occurred only sporadically. Chances are, the new Las Vegas team will probably be of mediocre quality, at best, for a substantial amount of time in its beginning. This predicted failure won"t be that much of a driving force in Vegas" economy, unless you"re counting paper-bag makers.
Plus, it"s not like the stadium for this NFL-caliber team will build itself. Sure, the Locos used UNLV"s current stadium, but its capacity is only 35-40K. To successfully be able to host NFL games, it would have to be almost doubled in size, which I am unsure if the University would sign on to doing. Building a second stadium is also rather pricey. While the NFL makes large profits every year, it has footed only 44% of stadium costs on average. The public ends up footing 56% (http://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com...), which is on average $238.1 million. Given Vegas" current $113 million budget deficit (http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov...) and Nevada"s roughly $1 billion deficit (http://budget.nv.gov...), I can"t see where that money would come from without very unpopular tax hikes, which probably will be blocked by the GOP majority in Nevada"s state legislature.

2. "there would be other things to do other than gamble and drink."
Yes, that"s somewhat right, but football is only 3 hours out of 168 in a week. And it probably would add to the gambling levels in Vegas, given the proximity of such a suitable gambling target. What"s worse, it would be harder to restrict resident NFL players from attending casinos in the city and potentially betting on games.
3. "It would also make Las Vegas more kid and family friendly. It would be something a family can do together."
I honestly believe, at least as a tourist, that Vegas is already quite family friendly. Circus Circus has the amusement park, other casinos have ones of slightly lesser size, there"s Lake Mead"..quite time consuming for any family, in my opinion. An extra 3 hours of potential football games won"t change much.
Most of my arguments have been brought up in rebuttals, that the stadium would be unaffordable, wouldn't substantially add to GDP for quite a while, and might uptick crime (through control of casinos and bookies by shady, organized crime rings) and certainly gambling in the city. Those are my arguments, con.
Debate Round No. 1
Clicker

Pro

Clicker forfeited this round.
Buggie111

Con

Opponent forfeits. I'd like to point out that although I misinterpreted the question to mean an NFL team, my arguments still hold for other types of sports.
Debate Round No. 2
Clicker

Pro

Look dude, what do you have against a team here in Vegas? How will it make anything bad huh? It's just an opportunity for people in Las Vegas to have a favorite team. Who cares about the 3 hour crap. We want a freaking team to watch, so why don't you want one personally? No facts just the nice truth.
Buggie111

Con

"No facts just the nice truth"

My arguments are available above, and I'd like to say that I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
Clicker

Pro

Clicker forfeited this round.
Buggie111

Con

Opponent forfeits. Vote for the guy with sources. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by birdlandmemories 1 year ago
birdlandmemories
Seattle deserves a basketball team before Vegas, and Quebec City deserves a hockey team before Vegas does.
Posted by Clicker 3 years ago
Clicker
Sorry I didn't have enough time to make my arguments...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
ClickerBuggie111Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that the semi-agreeing from Con harmed the negation. Con, you needed to argue against Pro, not with him/her. Nevertheless, Con didn't outright agree with Pro, and countered enough not to warrant giving arguments to either side. Con's conduct for far better, considering the forfeits. Con's sources were helpful in making his/her case, even if the case was, as admitted, slightly awry. Still, I found the sources relevant enough to award source points to Con.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
ClickerBuggie111Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made almost no arguments and even though pros rebuttals were partial concessions, at least he made some. Con was the only one to use sources. Pro forfeited twice, but he still had bad conduct in round 3.